Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Nonrepresentationalist-Argument-For-M 👈

1. A Nonrepresentationalist Argument for Music
Patrick Hinds*1
*
Music Dept., University of Surrey, United Kingdom
1
patrick_hinds@hotmail.co.uk
ABSTRACT
Music is a universally accessible phenomenon that resists
understanding. These conditions have prompted a
considerable discourse on music’s transcendental properties,
tied up with the notion of an exclusively musical meaning.
Following a literature review, I reject this notion, favouring a
leaner theory that takes music’s lack of objective meaning just
as a lack of objective meaning.
I argue that music is a self-directed practice, contingent on a
perceiver’s prerogative to block the perceived objective
significance of an object and engage with it for the sake of
engaging itself. This subversion of meaning is, I suggest, a
mechanism in virtue of which we may have consciousness of
sound tout court: when the world is separated from the aspect
of self that is affording the means of perception and the latter
is taken as a subject of experience. Such an argument can
make intelligible the concept of intrinsically cognitive
operations- those that do not refer outwardly
Emerging research in music psychology gives empirical
grounding to this concept, accounting for music experience
with psychological structures that are nonrepresentational and
thus lack extrinsic content.
The upshot is that music can exemplify nonrepresentational
experience, where a ‘representation’ is an individuated
(mental) object with semantic properties. There may be no
specifiable object true to the experience because music is
partly constituted by that which is intrinsically cognitive. This
framework could thus be wielded in a discussion of qualia,
potentially elucidating the intuition that some qualities of
experience are irreducibly mental in nature.
I. Music’s Intrinsic Value
Scholars of music have often made the claim that music’s
meaning is closed from the world. This position is intimately
related to ideals concerning music’s autonomy- the idea that
music’s meaning is inherent or intrinsic. As Eduard Hanslick-
the progenitor of such a view- put it, music’s meaning
‘inheres in the combinations of musical sounds and is
independent of all alien, extra-musical notions.’ i
While
Hanslick may have set the tone in the 19th
century, there have
been numerous variants on music’s closure in recent years.
Perhaps most strikingly, John Cage, known for
polemicizing the Western Art music tradition through both
writing and composition, seems to share Hanslick’s view that
music’s meaning is intrinsic rather than extrinsic: ‘Music
means nothing as a thing’ii
he argues; for Cage, ‘sounds
should be just sounds.’iii
Note the uncanny resemblance of the
latter comment to something that his ideological opponent
Hanslick wrote: ‘music speaks not only by means of sounds, it
speaks nothing but sounds.’iv
What both Cage and Hanslick
agree on is that music is segregated from meaning. For Cage
this is the separation of music from ideas, ideologies,
conventions and human control. For Hanslick this is the
separation of music from all worldly concepts: from lyrics,
narrative, emotions and culture.
However, Cage was radical in his rejection of meaning tout
court, and it seems that a common stance in musicology and
aesthetics has rather been to appeal to ideals of an exclusively
musical meaning, and in so doing propagate the
transcendentalist conception of music structure. Hanslick
helped instigate this line of thought by suggesting that
‘[m]usic’s kingdom is, indeed, “not of this world”’ (p.70.)
Although more recent examples are not hard to come by: Jim
Samson, while implicitly opposing himself to the likes of
Hanslick in places, nonetheless seems to concede to the
inaccessible musical meaning:
‘Music, it might be argued, is so utterly and irreducibly
specific, its meaning so embedded in its essence, that we are
forced to borrow from other systems of thought in order to
attempt any kind of description at all.’v
Samson may stop short of explicitly advocating a
transcendentalist discourse here, although he does imply that
music is special in its isolation from the world. Conversely,
Roger Scruton, exhibiting far more ardor and conviction,
vehemently affirms music’s closure from the world, holding
that not only should it be conceded that music is beyond
rational enterprise but also that it should be protected from it:
‘It is obviously the case that advances in the neurosciences
have begun to impinge upon what for me was a sacred and
protected territory [music] and one has to, as it were, herd the
call to rush to the boundary to defend it.’vi
However, a particularly succinct and explicit expression of
this transcendentalist position comes from Lawrence
Zbikowski who, writing on music-cognition, states that
“Musical concepts are of another world, another order,
because they extend into a domain that is beyond words.”vii
The postulate that musical sound has its own meaning, that
does not refer to extra-musical properties, is a pervasive one
then, seemingly persisting in various quite disparate
approaches. In this paper I adopt what I see as the premises of
the above arguments- that music is an intense experience, and
is not reducible to objective properties- but argue against the
notion of a musical kind of meaning that is central to
transcendent views. Such views may be rather heavily
ideology-laden, and as such likely constrain understanding of
music by promoting a particular bias. Certainly, a
transcendent view does glorify music, which musicologists
438

2. would presumably be keen to do, and yet I think the notion of
there being something unique, or even peculiar about music’s
content seems to be at odds with certain cultural realities. For
example:
Juslin notes that the most typical listening attitude is one of
indifference, where music is not the focus of attention;viii
musical experience has been observed, in the form of a
favourable response to consonance, in children in the early
stages of infancy (Trehub: 2009; 231); music is practiced by
all known peoples of the world (Agawu 1999); music is
highly heterogeneous both in its production and its
interpretation.
Also, the reliance of this view on the opacity of the
ineffable is in danger of dissolving into fallacy- the
transcendentalist argument equates, I think, to the assertion
that absence of an observable musical meaning does not
indicate an absence of meaning but rather the existence of an
unobservable meaning. A leaner theory would posit the
absence of musical meaning just as an absence of musical
meaning. To take this line would be to accept that music is
only sound. This obviously opens a gaping explanatory gap to
the order of: what is the nature of music’s apparent
meaningfulness? To close the gap I propose that the
experiential intensity of music can be accounted for by
intrinsically value-laden cognitive operations. The effect of
this concept is to endorse experiential autonomy by bestowing
a constitutive role on cognition itself. I later argue that the
lack of referential meaning in music is in fact necessary for
the intensity of experience to obtain, since conceptual
constraint would do violence to the freedom of cognitive
engagement characteristic of musical intercourse. On this
view, much of the explanatory burden is on music psychology
to account for music experience in terms of intrinsically
cognitive phenomena; I will discuss several studies but only
one in any real detail.
II. Music Psychology
A. Cognitive Categorisation
Zbikowskiix
applied a number of cognitive models to music;
the model I am concerned with pertains to cognitive
categorization:
‘[Our] recognition of… things reflects the categories
through which we structure our thought: to recognise a book
is to identify it as a member of the category book; to recognise
a tree is to identify it as a member of the category tree.
Categorization occurs in all sensory modalities and
throughout the range of mental activities: we categorize
smells and sounds, thoughts and emotions, skin sensations and
physical movement. Categories are…basic to thought.’
(p.13)
It was Zbikowski’s insight to demonstrate how this
fundamental cognitive process is essential to music listening.
He did this in the form of a motivic analysis- explicating the
musical motif, and the reported phenomenology of a musical
motif (ascriptions of value etc. in discourse), as a cognitive
category- although, as he puts it, while this ‘is a good example
of a musical category, categories can be much more various
and structured around whatever set of musical relationships
seems best to account for what is salient about a particular
repertoire’ (p.59.) Indeed, the principle themes for a cognitive
category analysis are the establishment of a prototypic form
and then the manifestation of further forms that can be
observed to hold some relationship with the prototype, such
that a range of musical elements, e.g. rhythm, phrase structure,
harmony, key and melody, ought all to be well-suited to such
analysis.
The conclusion that one of the most pervasive and essential
human characteristics- that of the ability to categorise- can be
linked to one of the most pervasive and essential
characteristics of music- that of structural relationships
between component parts- seems to me a fairly spectacular
one, in as far as it proffers a clear and tangible cognitive
account of a very significant means by which music has
experiential value. Zbikowski chooses the transcendentalist
position over this conclusion, however, as mentioned above,
although there seems nothing necessary about making this
move into mysticism. I am going to take his findings at face
value- the strong relation between cognitive categorisation,
music structure and music discourse seems sufficient to give
cognitive categorisation alone considerable explanative worth.
On this view then, it is not what is expressed with categorical
structure that makes music phenomenally salient, but rather
just that there is categorical structure.
B. Image Schemata
Image schematax
are embodied structures, so derive their
content from the body as opposed to mental representations;
and they are metaphorical in that they can apply to lots of
different experiences. This structural multiplicity helps us
‘carve up our world’xi
into manageable chunks. Hence image
schemata facilitate rather than constitute understanding, and
by the same token are intrinsically cognitive, having no reality
outside the bounds of the cognitive. That these structures have
proven explanative in music analyses by Alan Moore (2010)
and Larson and Van Handel (2005) is highly instructive, since
they are so explanative without having attendant concepts: it
is the operation of image schemata alone, and not their
functional role of explicating the world that is linked to
musical value.
C. Ecological Theory
Clarkexii
developed an approach to music based on James
Gibson’sxiii
work on ecological theory. This is the theory that
there is much inherent structure in the environment and in the
perceiver that thus affords the perceiver direct perception-
without mediation from abstract knowledge or representations.
This theory refers to- and is supported by- work in the field of
robotics and connectionism.xiv
Clarke describes an example of
how musical texture can specify volumetric space:
‘in bars 103 and 104 all four instruments play
semibreves… in unison and octave doublings, but at 105…
the four instruments break out into four-part harmony, and
then… six-part harmony at 106. The effect is of a narrow
space, or singularity, bursting open” (p.184).
439

3. The space of which Clarke speaks is, of course, illusory- or
‘virtual,’ as he prefers. These spatial properties are by no
means part of the music in any objective sense (part of
physical, or semantic content); they are products of, and
exclusive to, the cognition of the music. Again, the point here
is that myriad ecological meanings can be found in analysis in
lieu of high-order semantic or conceptual meaning, which
suggests that the perceptual function itself has experiential
efficacy, irrespective of its aim of gleaning salient
environmental information.
D. Other Studies
I will note but not detail a few other points that indicate
music’s cognitive intrinsicality. Generic musical materials
have been explicated without referencing external processing
units or representations. For example, tonal hierarchy has
been modelled in connectionist architecture;xv
this research
demonstrates that human responses to (an aspect of) musical
sound can be modelled by a system that has no mediating
external processor. Also, rhythm has been theorised as
neurological entrainment, which suggests a conceptually
unmediated neural mechanism for the development of
rhythm-expectancies.xvi
Finally, Stevens and Byronxvii
have
indicated universal musical constraints, i.e. those that obtain
across all conceptual frameworks and so are not specific to
any particular epistemology.
E. Psychology in Sum
These cognitive operations lack extrinsic content then; they
do not give an account of how music is meaningful as part of
the world, and they suggest that a person listens not for what
music can express or communicate but rather for the
experience of being cognitively engaged.
There are most probably studies revealing intrinsic
cognitive contents that I have missed, and future
developments will undoubtedly proffer much to expand the
music-psychologists explanative repertoire in this regard. But,
I think the studies reviewed would afford sufficient ascribable
content to explicate a particularly intense experiential
phenomenon. Certainly, it is not at all clear that there would
be a need, or even room, for the addition of an exclusively
musical meaning. In fact, I think the absence of extrinsic
meaning is key to facilitating music’s intensity: the lack of
mediation by understanding implies a direct engagement with
the faculties for feeling; meaning can be regarded a constraint
that is lifted to allow freedom of cognitive structuring.
Consider the profusion of distinct categories that play out
simultaneously in a piece of music (rhythm, harmony, melody,
etc.), along with the ecological specification of numerous
dynamic sound sources and the operation of embodied
schemata; such structural complexity would not be possible in
a conceptual narrative, at least not in the same time-frame.
III. Elaborating a Nonrepresentationalist View
A concept of experiential autonomy trivially follows from
the concept of experience without extrinsic reference.
However, with this concept of autonomy I do not aim to
specialise music (viz. Hanslick and the rest.) Rather, I suggest
that music listeners enjoy a basic and completely general
human prerogative.
I argue that music is a self-directed practice. Consider that
music is a ‘species-specific trait’xviii
; it is one that ‘[a]ll
cultures regard… as at least minimally valuable’xix
and one
that non-human primates dislike- they prefer silence;xx
it is
trivially accessible.xxi
These points suggest music rests on a distinctively human
characteristic that is basic to humans generally, one such
characteristic being that of a sophisticated concept of self.
Suppose that a self-aware being might break its tie to
meaningful perception- the perception of what is held to be
significant as regards the aims and intentions of the organism-
by directing intentionality toward (aspects of) itself. It seems
like such behaviour would give nothing by way of extrinsic
referents. The formal experience of sound- as of a
psychological entity distinguishable from whatever
conceptual framework it might refer to- would, on this
account, be that which is facilitated by the turning inward of
consciousness. To have sound in itself, then, would be to have
the epistemic foundation to conceive of the perceiver, and to
comprehend the means by which the perceiver perceives. It is
the active ignorance of meaning and engagement with self
that affords this capacity- when the world is separated from
the means of perception and the latter is taken as a subject of
experience.
Far from specialising music, the thrust here is rather that
music is a specific employment of the most general and
fundamental of human abilities, that of conceiving oneself as
oneself. As such, this account of music as self-directed and
irreducibly phenomenological is easily situated in a discussion
of phenomenological experience generally.xxii
Levine outlines
the problem of the explanatory gap:
‘By appeal to the physical properties of the brain we seem
able to explain how we process information, how our bodies
react to the environment, and even- on analogy with
computers- how we reason. But why any of these processes
should give rise to consciousness, that there should be
something it’s like for creatures who have these processes
going on inside them, this seems mysterious to us.’xxiii
Problems pertaining to music seem germane: the
musicologist Nicholas Cookxxiv
cites a wealth of empirical,
theoretical and phenomenological evidence to argue that
forms of music representation and forms of music experience
are ‘two essentially different things,’ that there is a ‘disparity
between the experience of music and the way in which we
imagine or think about it’ (p.135,) and that formal
music-representations are ‘explanatory metaphors or fictions’
(p.241.) Music, it seems, forces the explanatory gap on us
powerfully, given that centuries of academic research seems
not to have revealed the nature of what is a trivially accessible
experience. But this separateness of experience and
understanding, whether pertaining to music or qualia
generally, is just what would be expected, where we to
endorse the notion of intrinsically value-laden cognitive
operations. On this view, qualia are elucidated by music.
440

4. Consider Jeffrey Gray, a neuroscientist, lamenting science’s
ineptitude in accounting for qualia:
‘given that there is a scientific story that goes seamlessly
from sensory input to behavioural output without reference to
consciousness then, when we try to add conscious experience
back into the story, we can’t find anything for consciousness
to do.’xxv
Music might be a good example of how a mind can have
experience without having anything ‘to do,’ in Gray’s sense.
Sounds or images may only manifest as distinct entities when
they are conceived as affording the functions that they do,
thus providing the cognitive utility to detach the subject from
the object and conduce to the exploration of the former. What
music can be observed ‘doing’ or what ‘behavioural output’ it
produces, are only sensible questions on the view that music’s
content is a property of objects that is represented by the mind.
When this view is rejected, and the mind is assumed to
contribute towards music’s content in virtue of its intrinsic
operations, that there is a scientifically inaccessible realm of
experience becomes intelligible. Perhaps Stravinsky
characterises this argument succinctly when he says: ‘I
haven’t understood a bar of music in my life, but I have felt
it.’xxvi
REFERENCES
i
Eduard Hanslick, The Beautiful in Music, trans. Gustav Cohen (Michigan:
the University of Michigan, 1891), 12.
ii
John Cage, Silence (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press 1961), 66.
iii
Cage 1961; 61
iv
Hanslick 1854/1891; 119
v
Jim Samson, ‘Analysis in Context,’ in Rethinking Music, ed. Nicholas Cook
and Mark Everest (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 47
vi
Scruton, Rodger, ‘Can there be a Science of Musical Understanding?’ (2011)
url: http://www.themusicalbrain.org/events accessed 02/2012
vii
Lawrence Zbikowski, Conceptualising Music (Oxford: Oxford University
Press 2002,) 326
viii
Juslin, ‘Emotional Responses to Music’ in The Oxford Handbook of Music
Psychology: 2009 p.133
ix
Lawrence Zbikowski, Conceptualising Music (Oxford: Oxford University
Press 2002).
x
See Mark Johnson, The Body in the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press 1987.)
xi
Johnson 1987
xii
Eric Clarke, Ways of Listening (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005).
xiii
Gibson 1966, 1979
xiv
For a review of embodied and ecological cognitive content see Shapiro
2011
xv
Emmanuel Bigand and Benedict Poulin-Charronnat, ‘Tonal cognition,’ in
The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology, ed. Susan Hallam, Ian Cross and
Micheal Thaut (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 59-71.
xvi
Mari Riess Jones, ‘Musical time,’ in The Oxford Handbook of Music
Psychology, ed. Susan Hallam, Ian Cross and Micheal Thaut (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 81-92.
xvii
Catherine Stevens and Tim Byron, ‘Universals in music processing,’ in
The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology, ed. Susan Hallam, Ian Cross and
Micheal Thaut (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 14-23.
xviii
Kofi Agawa, ‘The Challenge of Semiotics,’ in Rethinking Music, ed.
Nicholas Cook and Mark Everest (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999),
102-138
xix
Bruno Nettl, The Study of Ethnomusicology: thirty-one issues and concepts
(Illinois: University of Illinois 2005), 23.
xx
Josh McDermott and Marc D. Hauser, ‘Nonhuman primates prefer slow
tempos but dislike music overall,’ in Science Direct Cognition 104 (2007):
654–668 2006 accessed March 2012, URL:
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~jhm/mcdermott_tempo.pdf
xxi
Nicholas Cook, Music Imagination and Culture, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press 1990), 218
xxii
Note that I am circumventing a thorough discussion of qualia here, as
space is limited: quite whether qualia are limited to perception, whether they
indicate dualism etc. is not strictly pertinent here. For a review see the Oxford
Handbook of the Philosophy of Mind (2009) esp. 223-313.
xxiii
Joseph Levine, ‘The Explanatory Gap,’ in The Oxford Handbook of the
Philosophy of Mind, ed. Brian P. McLaughlin, Ansgar Beckermann, Sven
Walter (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2009), 281-291
xxiv
Cook 1990
xxv
Jeffrey Gray, Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem (Oxford:
Oxford University Press 2004), 40, his emphasis
xxvi
Cited in Cook 1990; 186
441